Mark Stapleton

John, Thanks for the clarification. At least now I'm clear about what you were talking about. I respect your position about the holocaust being a special case. However, I don't agree that the natural extension of this argument is that anyone denying that this tragic event occured should be silenced on all other issues. Piper has written a book about the assassination which may shed light on this seemingly bottomless controversy. His possible myopia concerning the holocaust may be deeply disturbing to some who rightly believe that such theories are a distortion of history and their place in it. To add to this dilemma, Piper believes that the assassination may have been carried out, in part at least, by the nation which grew out of many of the survivors of the holocaust. Because of the intensity of feeling involved, there are bound to be clashes from the outset, providing Piper's application is accepted, of course. Piper will be bombarded with questions. He might have to give up his day job. He might not stay long, but I think his theory should be debated on its merits. I have not invited Piper to join the Forum. However, he did request to join the Forum at 21:18 on 10th Feb 2006. As it is not our policy to reject proposed members because Tim Gratz disapproves of them, his application to join is currently being processed. That's good news, John. I hope the debate doesn't get too nasty.

Amen, Tim! I wouldn't pull any punches on this. I think this is a special case where a special rule should be applied. Simply because of the anti semitism. There must be persons who can argue the Mossad angle who are proven to be impartial. This sort of person needs no voice on this forum. He represents a perversion that is so repulsive to humanity that it is possible to see it in a class of its own. For future generations, and out of respect for those who were there, society must be totally unambiguous on its stand on this issue. There can be no compromise with such filth. What a speech. Nice to see that you speak for all humanity--and future generations as well. BTW, society must be totally ambiguous on which issue? Please clarify your issue here and tell me how it relates to the thread.

Tim, How in the world does my desire to hear if Piper can contribute to this case equate to me taking painting lessons from Hitler? Totally ridiculous and inflammatory. You're assuming the role of moral guardian. You're not my moral guardian. I would have thought that members of the Forum are intelligent enough to determine a person's morality (or lack thereof) for themselves. I object to you determining what I may or may not hear. I don't see why you don't want him to be heard. Isn't it better for your argument that he states his case and then you prove to the Forum that you are right by debating the issues. What have you got to fear? Do you fear that he may state a reasonable case for IDF/ Mossad involvement? Tim writes: Mark, it does matter whether someone is a Nazi, Fascist, Klansman, preaches racial hatred etc. In Germany it led to the holocaust. In America it led to the lynchings of black people and the bombings of churches killing innocent little girls the age of my daughter. Racial hatred matters Mark. It matters very much. Although this little speech on racial hatred apparently impressed some, I would like to point out why this is very poor form, and a tactic which I believe deserves censure. Injecting your daughter into this debate, especially in this manner, has the implication, however veiled, that I am indifferent to the killing of innocent children. I'm a father too and you and I both know that such an implication is unthinkable and greatly resented. This is a debate about whether Michael Collins Piper's views on JFK's assassination should be heard. Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement--that's the name of this thread. You're taking this debate way beyond its parameters.

Tim, You don't seem to be able to accept that others may look at things from a different perspective than yours. Your thundering speeches mean nothing to me. I'm interested in what this guy has to say about the assassination. I believe Mossad involvement is a possibility. The assassination is what I am interested in. All the rest is just a lotta noise. You seem to be outraged when others don't share your world view and moral indignation. Amazing. Mark I find your position here curious. Tim objects to Piper's anti-Semetism and this upsets you? Tim doesn't have the right to object to anti-Semitism but you have the right to object to objection? Amazing indeed. This raises a important question are all POV's equally valid? Len Len, My position has been clear and consistent throughout this thread, although I probably haven't explained myself very clearly. I don't object to Tim's objection to Piper's anti-semitism (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because I haven't read his book, but judging from the excerpts I've read its a pretty safe bet that he doesn't like Jews and the nation of Israel). Tim can object all he wants. He can make it his life's calling if he wants to. I have no problem with that, by itself. But Tim and others not only object to his apparent racism--they want him silenced. This I object to. I would like to hear Piper's views on the assassination. His views on matters unrelated to the assassination may be highly objectionable but it doesn't automatically follow that everything he says about the assassination is wrong. There's no law in criminology that states, "all unsolved assassinations must be solved by the virtuous". I've yet to be convinced of the logic of the argument being used by the "Ban Piper" advocates. ie. "he's an anti-Semite therefore he cannot possibly solve the riddle of JFK's death". You can't prove that argument because it's completely illogical. p.s. no worries about that typo.

If Piper were merely anti-Israel he would not bother me so much, it's the fact that he is an anti-Semetic Holocaust denier that upsets me. If he were openly a member of the Klan or the Nazi party what would be your position on him being invited to join this forum? That question is for you to John. The "lynch mob" does not need to wait for Herr Piper to show up here he has made his views clear already. If Posner ever shows up here I think most members of this forum will know his POV before he starts posting. Len, I'm not sure I understand your meaning when you state, "That question is for you to John". If you have a question for John I suggest you direct it to him. I won't be addressing questions to John on your behalf. However, I can answer your loaded question if you like. "If he were openly a member of the Klan or the Nazi Party what would your position on him being invited to join this forum? My answer depends on whether such an individual has something of value to contribute to the collective knowledge of the assassination. If wouldn't matter to me if its a nazi, fascist, Klan or Bonesman. Listen to the argument and evaluate its merit. If a Nazi, Klansman or holocaust denier wished to argue the dubious merits of their philosophies, then they could do that--elsewhere on the Forum--and would no doubt be heavily criticised by those members, myself included, who disagree with such philosophies. However, I doubt if I would waste time arguing on those threads. Now I have a hypothetical for you. If Piper presents arguments which are logical and cohesive, based on detailed research and not blind ideology, which may lead to a greater understanding of the factors involved in the death of JFK, would you still try to silence him?

Tim, You don't seem to be able to accept that others may look at things from a different perspective than yours. Your thundering speeches mean nothing to me. I'm interested in what this guy has to say about the assassination. I believe Mossad involvement is a possibility. The assassination is what I am interested in. All the rest is just a lotta noise. You seem to be outraged when others don't share your world view and moral indignation. Amazing.

As I said to John my position is not that Piper should not be allowed to defend his opinions but rather that he and you should admit that he comes here with a stong bias. I can't speak for Tim but in my case I don't fear what Piper has to say as much as disdain for what motives him. While inviting Carto to the JFK Assassination sub-forum obviously would not be appropriate there also are History Books, Nazi Germany, History and Political Conspiracies sub-forums which in theory he could be invited to join. You say you wouldn't read a Holocaust denial thread, by the same token wouldn't you question the motives of a Holocaust denier who blames the Kennedy assassination on a 'Jewish conspiracy'? Len Len, I'm glad to hear that you don't fear what Mr. Piper may have to say. If Mr. Piper's theories on the assassination prove to be nothing more than an extension of anti-Israel bias, this will become apparent at an early stage, IMO. However, I will still evaluate his claims about the Kennedy assassination in light of what I already know about the matter. This is a Forum devoted to the assassination of JFK. If he is willing to debate you and Tim on the holocaust and other issues--in a different section of the Forum--then that's great. You would surely wipe the floor with anyone who denies the existence of such a widely documented historical event as the holocaust. When people are invited to discuss their published works dealing with the assassination they are not, as far as I'm aware, compelled to submit their viewpoints on other issues unrelated to the subject matter. Perhaps we should require that authors inform the Forum of their positions on issues such abortion, euthanasia, civil rights, the ordination of women priests, fundamentalist religion and refugees before they are permitted to participate. Mr. Piper may hold views on Israel with which members have violent disagreement. If Mr. Piper expressed the view that all Australians are convict scum, derived from the worst of 18th century British convict classes, I would be offended but I would still listen to what he had to say about the assassination especially if I believed his theories had substance. I definitely would not call for his expulsion on moral grounds because that would be imposing my moral set of values on others who may not share my identical point of view. I request the lynch mob wait until their victim shows up before lighting the fire.

Al, Much appreciated. A concise evaluation of how good the shooters needed to be (from someone with knowledge in this area) was what I was trying to obtain. (although the opinions expressed by others have also been helpful). So despite the fact that the organisers made every effort to accomodate the shooters, the shooters were required to be among the very best in their field. Probably obvious in light of the importance of their job, but I was curious about this aspect of the assassination. Thanks again.

Tim, I've seen you throw childish tantrums before, but you're really in orbit on this one. I'm beginning to think you might be a paid asset of the Israeli Government. It's a common tactic of those who wish to silence others to label them as racist, communist, sexist, anti-semite etc, but you're labelling this guy before you know what he's about. He's written a book outlining his theory on the assassination. You've admitted you haven't read it, just skimmed it on the net, like myself. In case you don't know, John Simkin convenes this debate, not you. One of the great features of this Forum, unlike others, is that everyone gets the opportunity to express his or her opinion, regardless of whether John agrees with them. IMO, he's shown remarkable tolerance in putting up with your regular tantrums and insults. If you covet the role of determining who is entitled to express an opinion why don't you start up your own Forum and invite people to participate? What a nasty little nest of right wing ratbags that would be. p.s. I did finish high school and I also have a degree. Unlike you, I try not to bore everyone xxxxless by disdainfully and arrogantly parading this as proof of some kind of intellectual superiority. Mark Although I agree with you that Tim often spouts nonsense - IIRC he hinted that you might be anti-Semitic and there were the examples cited by John -I think he's right on this one and that you are either misinformed or in denial. Did you read the articles posted by Owen? Piper can be judged by more than Final Judgment, he has spent his either career as I can tell working for Willis Carto America's most important anti-Semite/Holocaust denier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Carto http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=48229 (see posts 36 - 39) You could take the position that a neo-Nazi like Piper is welcome here to discuss his book whose thesis is basically that "the Jews killed Kennedy" (Mossad, Lansky, Bonfman) as long as he is not overtly anti-Semitic, but to say he isn't anti-Semitic is denying the obvious. He can swear on a stack of Bibles or copies of Mein Kampf that he isn't but that will only show how intellectually dishonest he is. If this forum is truly open to all, even the likes of Piper, why not invite Max Holland, Gerald Posner, Larry Sturdivan etc. Heck why not invite Piper's boss Willis Carto himself to defend his theses that the Holocaust was a hoax, the Jews eeer Zionists want to take over the World etc.. Len, It all comes down to how much one wants to see the JFK assassination solved. Guys like Holland, Posner etc can join the Forum and defend their theories anytime they like, as far as I'm concerned. As for Carto, that analogy is irrelevant because it doesn't relate to JFK. Anyone who theorises that the holocaust was a hoax is wrong, of course, and I wouldn't waste my time reading such a thread. You've failed to make a valid case for why Piper shouldn't be given the opportunity to defend his opinions the same way that John extends the invitation to any others who believe they can contribute to closure on this confusing imbroglio. Tim's almost frantic attempts to have him silenced before he has spoken a word indicates to me that he has a profound fear of what Piper may have to say. It's Tim and those who support his stance who are in denial. The guy hasn't spoken a bloody word yet.

Steve, I don't consider 3,7,11 or 15 to be major factors. The rest I agree with.

Mark, I respect Tom's opinion - but as per witness testimony, the curb marks [plural], the round collected by the mystery man, the HSCA testimony about the round the struck the motorcop's fender, the accounts of rounds striking Elm, the possible Stemmon's Sign [the smaller Route 77? sign beneath], the furrows in the grass, the skull fragments, the smoke on the knoll, earwitnesses, etc. etc. etc. - I lean towards Corsicans, ex-Cuban Exiles and ?, without skill sets qualifying for 'professional Sniper' engagements / assignments - no 'one shot one kill' assignment here. Behind the fence near the corner [GKS], behind the retaining wall, behind the Pergola #3 [NCG], Pergola Gardens, DalTex 2nd floor, North Peristyle, 5th Floor East TSBD, 6th Floor West, 7th Floor east. No South Knoll shooter taking 100+ yard shots at a target through a windshield [ludicrous]. And only God knows what the man on the stairs was doing if he wasn't a spotter. Plus there's really no way of knowing how many may have held their fire, been chased off, or choked. Not professional snipers - but many professional killers. That's just my opinion. Office buildings combined with ground forces. And the limo stop was when the third fusilade was released. But we'll have to go along with the BS until someone has the balls to allow one of the films or some of the REAL photos to be released. - lee Yep! And as recalled, there are those who have been chasing similar scenario's for some 40+ years now. Certainly satisfying to see exactly how much progress has been made along this "multiple assassin" line. Tom, Like Lee, I also respect your opinion, despite expressing my disagreement with your LN scenario in the past. The point is, you are absolutely right. Not much progress has been made on the multiple assassin line and consensus is not likely anytime soon. However, much progress has been made on the LN line. We now know it's crap and there appears to be a general consensus on this.

It's an interesting point of conjecture. I know Bobby subsequently denied there was a plan to dump LBJ, but I don't necessarily believe him. Bobby had plans to be President himself and to claim that he and JFK had planned to dump LBJ prior to the assassination might have been needlessly inflammatory, given LBJ and his party were still in office. Also, there was Evelyn Lincoln's claim that indeed such a plan was being considered by JFK. With JFK well ahead in the polls and the prospect of facing Goldwater, a man JFK believed he could defeat easily, he probably could afford to drop LBJ and risk losing Texas. It wouldn't have been as crucial to hold as it was in 1960. It would have been a tricky exercise. LBJ had all those MIC connections and Dame Edgar in his corner.

Tim, I've seen you throw childish tantrums before, but you're really in orbit on this one. I'm beginning to think you might be a paid asset of the Israeli Government. It's a common tactic of those who wish to silence others to label them as racist, communist, sexist, anti-semite etc, but you're labelling this guy before you know what he's about. He's written a book outlining his theory on the assassination. You've admitted you haven't read it, just skimmed it on the net, like myself. In case you don't know, John Simkin convenes this debate, not you. One of the great features of this Forum, unlike others, is that everyone gets the opportunity to express his or her opinion, regardless of whether John agrees with them. IMO, he's shown remarkable tolerance in putting up with your regular tantrums and insults. If you covet the role of determining who is entitled to express an opinion why don't you start up your own Forum and invite people to participate? What a nasty little nest of right wing ratbags that would be. p.s. I did finish high school and I also have a degree. Unlike you, I try not to bore everyone xxxxless by disdainfully and arrogantly parading this as proof of some kind of intellectual superiority.

Tim, You haven't replied to my challenge that you post proof of your boastful claim of being trained in syllogistic reasoning. Please advise when you will be posting it and in which part of the Forum. Also, you ignored my question in relation to why you believe it is "immoral" to suggest Israeli Government involvement and not immoral to suggest involvement of the hundreds of other groups and individuals who have been suggested. Please don't evade these issues. You've done too much of that already on other issues.

David, Sorry to intrude, but that point about your Dad knowing JFK is interesting. Did you ever get to meet JFK when you were a kid ? You're not intruding on me, Mark... To answer your question, I was told by my father I was with him when he spoke with JFK, was quite young. Evidently Boston [local] newspaper press photos exist [some place] of JFK and other union leaders or the era. I have no recollection of the event. I didn't become a Democrat till age 6 Thanks for that. Bit of a feather in your cap there. Pity you were so young and can't remember--JFK probably said hello. Didn't realise you joined the Democrat Party so late.

Adam, I don't think LBJ wore his glasses while riding in the motorcade, but I'm not sure. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a photo of LBJ in the motorcade. I would love to see one if one exists. The few statements claiming he was talking into a walkie-talkie haven't been posiitively verified to my knowledge, but I believe they are true. FWIW.

I'll play too, Len--though I have little knowledge of the technology. #2. It probably was altered but the case for alteration is not conclusive.

Hands up all who have training in syllogistic reasoning. You might be the only one Tim. OK, I'm calling you. Since you claim to have training in this field could you please start a thread on it--elsewhere on the Forum of course--and prove to me that your claim is true. I'm not saying I don't believe you but your credibility regarding unsubstantiated claims is, well, less than perfect. I'll come clean right now--I've never heard of syllogistic reasoning. You say you have training in this area. Please prove it--but not here. This subject of this thread is Michael Collins Piper's book and the possible role of the Israeli Government in the murder of JFK. Don't make claims you can't back up Tim. I'm keen to learn. It's not a JFK issue so please post proof of your knowledge of this complex sounding subject in one of the education subforums. Sounds to me like 2000 words would barely do it justice. Don't let me down now. Otherwise you'll be regarded as a person who makes boastful claims then runs away when asked to substantiate them.

Tim, If your syllogistic reasoning background can't help you read a post (whatever that is), then what chance do I have of curing you ? My exact words were, "And my point about the Cohen book is useless?". Please point out where I claimed that YOU said the Cohen book is useless? Why I continue this futile debate with a Forum member who has a history of running like a greyhound from his own unsubstantiated assertions is a mystery. Maybe I have too much time on my hands. It doesn't make any sense (from a syllogistic viewpoint, that is).

So John Simkin has a hatred of all things American? I believe he will be surprised to hear that. And I'm not going to enter a debate on logic and critical thinking with a person suffering with your unfortunate affliction. However, I do feel a degree of sympathy for your plight. BTW, are you implying that no-one is fit to debate you unless they have completed a course in logic? I thought so. How illogical.

Post #45. You stated: Your point about the Cohen book is useless.. Tim, it's obvious to me and others on the Forum that you are one of the most careless readers here. John's already apologised to Jeff Dahlstrom on behalf of you for your bizarre accusations of anti-semitism towards him. It's a bit rich to lecture someone about critical thinking when you appear to be completely brainwashed by the current administration in Washington and its media cheer squad. The problem you face is that it will take twice the time for you to learn critical thinking than for others who don't share your affliction. First, you'll have to unlearn decades of right wing, neocon propaganda before you can start from scratch with a new slate. It won't be easy but we're here to help you, Tim. You're the saddest case I've yet encountered.

Thanks to those who have offered their opinions. Tom, your thoughts are appreciated but I really only wanted to determine the skill level which would be required of the team assuming there were three (or more) shooters. Lee, the link is interesting. It's hard to disagree with the author's choosing the eastern end of the fence as the ideal shooting point. Target is approaching not receeding, it's a flat trajectory so the downward angle allowance becomes unnecessary and the car park and railroad yard deliver the all-important escape route. A trained sniper's opinion. It's still not clear to me the skill level required to accomplish the ambush. Obviously they needed to be experienced shooters but did they need to be world class? Thanks to Pat and Chuck for the input. The JFK assassination was a rare example of a long range execution. Most assassinations have been short range, as far as I'm aware. I think the assassination of Sadat in 1981 was probably mid-range (30 feet or so), ditto for MLK in 1967. It seems to me that the JFK hit would have been the most difficult of these modern assassinations to accomplish with certainty. Of course, the shooters within or on top of the buildings were long range. Shooters located behind the fence or elsewhere much shorter in range. Or to experienced snipers, would all this be considered quite a close range assignment?

Very interesting stuff, John. I very much doubt that Stockdale committed suicide. I'm surprised Joesten lived in America throughout that period and still remained healthy, given his writings on LBJ and the assassination. Any idea when he died (assuming he's dead)?

Since when do "we all know that RFK was a big supporter of Israel"? If you mean did he support the nation of Israel, then the answer is yes. If you mean would he have reversed JFK's hardline on inspections, greatly increased military aid and protected Israel from the consequences of its own overzealous behavior, as LBJ did, then the answer is you don't know that any more than anyone else does. He may have followed his brothers impartial policy towards the Middle East. Who knows? You're just assuming (or hoping) these things are true, then using this as platform to build a doubtful argument. Then you preach it like it's gospel truth.

In Farewell America, the author states: President Kennedy's assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick complete with accessories and false mirrors and when the curtain fell the actors, and even the scenery, disappeared. But the magicians were not illusionists but professionals, artists in their way. The planning was obviously thourough. The route, motorcade, location etc, but how good were the shooters? Always wondered about this. Considering all the factors like range, speed of the target, size of target etc, I would be interested in the opinions of the experts on this like Al Carrier, Ryan Crowe and anyone else who has knowledge and experience in this field. I've never discharged a firearm myself. Was this an ambush with an extreme degree of difficulty requiring world class marksmen? For argument's sake, I'm assuming three firing positions (TSBD, Daltex, fence). I know there is dispute about the number and locations of the gunmen, but with these assumptions what kind of expertise would be required? Could, for example, the three best shooters in the local gun clubs throughout the county have been equal to this task? Would they necessarily have required military training? How many marksmen were there in Texas, or America or the world who could have been up to this job. I'm guessing possibly thousands but I really don't have a clue. Also, how would you rate their performance?